scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Sascha Martens

Bio: Sascha Martens is an academic researcher from University of Vienna. The author has contributed to research in topics: Autophagy & ATG8. The author has an hindex of 37, co-authored 72 publications receiving 11559 citations. Previous affiliations of Sascha Martens include Medical Research Council & Max F. Perutz Laboratories.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macro-autophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

5,187 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

1,129 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A panel of leading experts in the field attempts here to define several autophagy‐related terms based on specific biochemical features to formulate recommendations that facilitate the dissemination of knowledge within and outside the field of autophagic research.
Abstract: Over the past two decades, the molecular machinery that underlies autophagic responses has been characterized with ever increasing precision in multiple model organisms. Moreover, it has become clear that autophagy and autophagy-related processes have profound implications for human pathophysiology. However, considerable confusion persists about the use of appropriate terms to indicate specific types of autophagy and some components of the autophagy machinery, which may have detrimental effects on the expansion of the field. Driven by the overt recognition of such a potential obstacle, a panel of leading experts in the field attempts here to define several autophagy-related terms based on specific biochemical features. The ultimate objective of this collaborative exchange is to formulate recommendations that facilitate the dissemination of knowledge within and outside the field of autophagy research.

1,095 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This work discusses how proteins, including SNAREs, synaptotagmins and viral fusion proteins, might mediate close membrane apposition and induction of membrane curvature to drive diverse fusion processes.
Abstract: Membrane fusion can occur between cells, between different intracellular compartments, between intracellular compartments and the plasma membrane and between lipid-bound structures such as viral particles and cellular membranes In order for membranes to fuse they must first be brought together The more highly curved a membrane is, the more fusogenic it becomes We discuss how proteins, including SNAREs, synaptotagmins and viral fusion proteins, might mediate close membrane apposition and induction of membrane curvature to drive diverse fusion processes We also highlight common principles that can be derived from the analysis of the role of these proteins

651 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
25 May 2007-Science
TL;DR: It is found that, in response to Ca2+ binding, synaptotagmin-1 could promote SNARE-mediated fusion by lowering this activation barrier by inducing high positive curvature in target membranes on C2-domain membrane insertion.
Abstract: Synaptic vesicles loaded with neurotransmitters are exocytosed in a soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor attachment protein receptor (SNARE)-dependent manner after presynaptic depolarization induces calcium ion (Ca2+) influx. The Ca2+ sensor required for fast fusion is synaptotagmin-1. The activation energy of bilayer-bilayer fusion is very high (approximately 40 k(B)T). We found that, in response to Ca2+ binding, synaptotagmin-1 could promote SNARE-mediated fusion by lowering this activation barrier by inducing high positive curvature in target membranes on C2-domain membrane insertion. Thus, synaptotagmin-1 triggers the fusion of docked vesicles by local Ca2+-dependent buckling of the plasma membrane together with the zippering of SNAREs. This mechanism may be widely used in membrane fusion.

527 citations


Cited by
More filters
28 Jul 2005
TL;DR: PfPMP1)与感染红细胞、树突状组胞以及胎盘的单个或多个受体作用,在黏附及免疫逃避中起关键的作�ly.
Abstract: 抗原变异可使得多种致病微生物易于逃避宿主免疫应答。表达在感染红细胞表面的恶性疟原虫红细胞表面蛋白1(PfPMP1)与感染红细胞、内皮细胞、树突状细胞以及胎盘的单个或多个受体作用,在黏附及免疫逃避中起关键的作用。每个单倍体基因组var基因家族编码约60种成员,通过启动转录不同的var基因变异体为抗原变异提供了分子基础。

18,940 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macro-autophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

5,187 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Lorenzo Galluzzi1, Lorenzo Galluzzi2, Ilio Vitale3, Stuart A. Aaronson4  +183 moreInstitutions (111)
TL;DR: The Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) has formulated guidelines for the definition and interpretation of cell death from morphological, biochemical, and functional perspectives.
Abstract: Over the past decade, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) has formulated guidelines for the definition and interpretation of cell death from morphological, biochemical, and functional perspectives. Since the field continues to expand and novel mechanisms that orchestrate multiple cell death pathways are unveiled, we propose an updated classification of cell death subroutines focusing on mechanistic and essential (as opposed to correlative and dispensable) aspects of the process. As we provide molecularly oriented definitions of terms including intrinsic apoptosis, extrinsic apoptosis, mitochondrial permeability transition (MPT)-driven necrosis, necroptosis, ferroptosis, pyroptosis, parthanatos, entotic cell death, NETotic cell death, lysosome-dependent cell death, autophagy-dependent cell death, immunogenic cell death, cellular senescence, and mitotic catastrophe, we discuss the utility of neologisms that refer to highly specialized instances of these processes. The mission of the NCCD is to provide a widely accepted nomenclature on cell death in support of the continued development of the field.

3,301 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: This volume is keyed to high resolution electron microscopy, which is a sophisticated form of structural analysis, but really morphology in a modern guise, the physical and mechanical background of the instrument and its ancillary tools are simply and well presented.
Abstract: I read this book the same weekend that the Packers took on the Rams, and the experience of the latter event, obviously, colored my judgment. Although I abhor anything that smacks of being a handbook (like, \"How to Earn a Merit Badge in Neurosurgery\") because too many volumes in biomedical science already evince a boyscout-like approach, I must confess that parts of this volume are fast, scholarly, and significant, with certain reservations. I like parts of this well-illustrated book because Dr. Sj6strand, without so stating, develops certain subjects on technique in relation to the acquisition of judgment and sophistication. And this is important! So, given that the author (like all of us) is somewhat deficient in some areas, and biased in others, the book is still valuable if the uninitiated reader swallows it in a general fashion, realizing full well that what will be required from the reader is a modulation to fit his vision, propreception, adaptation and response, and the kind of problem he is undertaking. A major deficiency of this book is revealed by comparison of its use of physics and of chemistry to provide understanding and background for the application of high resolution electron microscopy to problems in biology. Since the volume is keyed to high resolution electron microscopy, which is a sophisticated form of structural analysis, but really morphology in a modern guise, the physical and mechanical background of The instrument and its ancillary tools are simply and well presented. The potential use of chemical or cytochemical information as it relates to biological fine structure , however, is quite deficient. I wonder when even sophisticated morphol-ogists will consider fixation a reaction and not a technique; only then will the fundamentals become self-evident and predictable and this sine qua flon will become less mystical. Staining reactions (the most inadequate chapter) ought to be something more than a technique to selectively enhance contrast of morphological elements; it ought to give the structural addresses of some of the chemical residents of cell components. Is it pertinent that auto-radiography gets singled out for more complete coverage than other significant aspects of cytochemistry by a high resolution microscopist, when it has a built-in minimal error of 1,000 A in standard practice? I don't mean to blind-side (in strict football terminology) Dr. Sj6strand's efforts for what is \"routinely used in our laboratory\"; what is done is usually well done. It's just that …

3,197 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: What is known about mammalian endocytic mechanisms is reviewed, with focus on the cellular proteins that control these events, and the functional relevance of distinctendocytic pathways is discussed.
Abstract: Endocytic mechanisms control the lipid and protein composition of the plasma membrane, thereby regulating how cells interact with their environments. Here, we review what is known about mammalian endocytic mechanisms, with focus on the cellular proteins that control these events. We discuss the well-studied clathrin-mediated endocytic mechanisms and dissect endocytic pathways that proceed independently of clathrin. These clathrin-independent pathways include the CLIC/GEEC endocytic pathway, arf6-dependent endocytosis, flotillin-dependent endocytosis, macropinocytosis, circular doral ruffles, phagocytosis, and trans-endocytosis. We also critically review the role of caveolae and caveolin1 in endocytosis. We highlight the roles of lipids, membrane curvature-modulating proteins, small G proteins, actin, and dynamin in endocytic pathways. We discuss the functional relevance of distinct endocytic pathways and emphasize the importance of studying these pathways to understand human disease processes.

2,685 citations